Bangalore District Court
) Smt.Srilakshmi vs Mr.Nazar Khan on 30 November, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BANGALORE
(SCCH-1)
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF NOVEMBER'2016
PRESENT : SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L., LL.B.,
CHIEF JUDGE.
H.R.C.No.48/2016
PETITIONERS 1) Smt.Srilakshmi,
W/o.Late R.Seenappa,
Aged about 59 years,
2) Sri Dinesh,
D/o.Late R.Seenappa,
Aged about 40 years,
3) Smt.Manjula,
D/o.Late R.Seenappa,
W/o.Nagaraj,
Aged about 37 years,
4) Smt.Vanitha,
D/o.Late R.Seenappa,
W/o.Shivakumar,
Aged about 34 years,
5) Sri Mani S.,
S/o.Late R.Seenappa,
Aged about 32 years,
All R/o.No.2, D-II Street,
Sundar Mudaliar Street,
Ulsoor, Bangalore 560 008.
(By Sri T.K.Rajagopala, Advocate)
-Vs-
RESPONDENT Mr.Nazar Khan,
S/o.Not known,
R/at No.11, 2nd Cross, 4th Main,
Shamanna Gowda Layout,
Ulsoor, Bangalore 560 008.
(By Sri Reshma K.T., Advocate).
2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 27 (2) (a), (r) and 31 (1) (a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 by the petitioners seeking the relief of eviction against the respondent and also to direct the respondent to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule premises and to pass such other orders .
2. The brief facts of the case are:-
It is the case of the petitioners the residential premises bearing No.11, as described in the Schedule A to the petition, was the subject matter of partition suit in O.S.No.52/1999 on the file of II Addl.Prl.Judge, Family Court, Bangalore. One Smt.Muniyamma had filed the said suit against R.Seenappa, which came to be decreed on 08.07.2005 and a preliminary decree was drawn and as per the decree passed in the said suit, the Court ordered partition of the petition Schedule A property in to two equal shares and based upon the preliminary decree, said Smt.Muniyamma and her daughters filed FDP 1/2009 for drawing up of the final decree and in the said FDP, R.Seenappa was the respondent, who died during the pendency of the said FDP proceedings and his legal heirs came on record in substitution proceedings who are the petitioners herein. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed in the said FDP for division of the petition schedule A property and the Commissioner submitted his 3 report along with the sketch bifurcating the petition schedule A property into two halves marked with letters X and Y and the portion marked with Y has been allotted to the share of the petitioners ie., the Lrs of R.Seenappa and the said FDP 1/2009 stood disposed of on
03.12.2015 directing the office of the said Court to draw final decree in respect of the said property and the office of the said Court called upon the petitioners to furnish non-judicial stamp paper to engross the final decree and accordingly, they complied with the direction of the Court and the decree has been engrossed on the said non judicial stamp paper and the same was tendered for registration before the Sub-Registrar, K.R.Puram and registered in the name of the petitioners.
3. It is averred that the petitioners have been aware of the fact that the respondent has been residing as a tenant in the petition schedule B portion of the premises No.11 as a tenant under one Smt.Muniyamma on a monthly rent of Rs.2,500/-, but in the legal notice, the petitioners have stated the monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- which is for the full extent ie., petition schedule A premises, but what the petitioners have got is half share thereof which is petition schedule B premises.
4
4. It is averred that with the passing of the final decree in FDP 1/2009, the said Muniyamma and her daughters got half share in the petition schedule A property which measures East to West 22 feet and North to South 16 feet.
5. The further case of the petitioners is that Smt.Muniyamma and her three daughters have nothing to do with petition schedule B premises from the date of disposal of FDP No.1/2009 on 03.12.2015 and with the registration of the FDP decree by the said Registrar on 05.03.2016 and by virtue of the same, the petitioners are the absolute owners of the petition schedule B premises which under the occupation of the respondent.
6. The further case of the petitioner's is that since 03.12.2015, the date of disposal of the said FDP No.1/2009 and registration of the decree on 06.03.2016, the respondent has become tenant under the petitioners as to the petition schedule B premises.
7. The petitioners got issued a legal notice on 29.04.2016 narrating the above said facts in the notice and the notice was sent by RPAD, which was returned unclaimed by the respondent with an endorsement "D for L" 1st ID 5.4.2016 and second intimation on 06.04.2016 which constitutes deemed service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act.
5
8. The 1st petitioner is a widow and the other petitioners are her sons and daughters.
9. The petitioners have been staying together in a rented house at No.2, D-II Street, Sundar Mudaliar Street, Ulsoor, Bangalore 560 008 which is very small, but in spite of that, the petitioners have been staying there without any option.
10. The 2nd petitioner is marked and he has got two issues and 4th petitioner is a divorcee.
11. 1st petitioner has been finding it difficult to stay with the 2nd petitioner and his family members and further she has got an obligation to look after the 4th petitioner and they have no other alternative accommodation except the petition schedule B premises.
12. The respondent in spite of having been called upon to pay the rent to the petitioners vide their legal notice dated 29.04.2016, he has not come forward to tender the rent to the petitioners at the rate of Rs.2,500/- from March'2016 with regard to the petition schedule B premises for a period of three months and the total rent due by the respondent to the petitioners to the date of filing of the petition is Rs.7,500/- thereby committing default in payment of monthly rent to the petitioners constituting ground for his eviction from the petition schedule B premises. Hence the petitioners pray the Court to pass an 6 order of eviction against the respondent from the schedule premises under Section 27(2)(r), 27(2)(a) and 31(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
13. In pursuance of this petition, this Court has issued notice to the respondent and respondent has appeared before the Court through his counsel and filed objection statement denying the petition averments.
14. There is no jural relationship between the petitioners and the respondent as landlords and tenant in respect of schedule B premises.
15. The petition is liable to dismissed for mis-joinder and non- joinder of necessary parties.
16. The respondent has been put in possession by one Smt.Muniyamma, W/o.Late R.Seenappa and by her children in respect of Schedule A property, after they got vacated the previous tenant by virtue of an order of eviction passed in HRC No.351/2009 on the file of II Addl.Small Causes Court, Bangalore and since then, the respondent is in lawful, peaceful possession and enjoyment of Schedule A property.
17. On an enquiry by the respondent, Smt.Muniyamma has expressed that there was a suit in OS No.52/1999 between herself and 7 her husband late R.Seenappa with regard to partition of Schedule A and accordingly, suit came to be decree for her half share. In pursuance of the judgment rendered in O.S.52/1999 dated 08.07.2005, Smt.Muniyamma has filed FDP 1/2009 against her husband, who died during the pendency of the FDP proceedings and the said Smt.Mnimyamma has challenged the FDP order dated 03.12.2015 before the Hon'ble High Court in MFA No.4178/2016 and as such, the Commissioner's report is under challenge and even according to Muniyamma, her daughters have filed an impleading application to implead them as respondents in FDP No.1/2009, on account of death of their father R.Seenappa. The said application came to be allowed, however, by oversight, there is a mistake in the order to implead them as LRs of Smt.Muniyamma and there is a serious dispute about the same when Smt.Muniyamma is alive.
18. The respondent is not aware of the averments in para 10 and 11 of the petition and put the petitioners to strict proof of the same.
19. It is true that the respondent has been residing as a tenant in whole of the premises-Schedule A property under the ownership of Smt.Muniyamma and her daughters and the respondent has been put 8 in possession by Smt.Muniyamma and her daughters under oral agreement and the respondent has been paying rent regularly to them.
20. It is denied that the respondent has been residing as a tenant in the schedule B portion of the premises No.11 as a tenant, whereas, the respondent is in possession of the entire A schedule property It is denied that the respondent is paying monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- for the said portion.
21. Smt.Muniyamma and her three daughters are having right, title and interest in respect of Schedule B property which is part of schedule A property and the petitioners are the strangers to them.
22. The respondent has not received any notice and it appears that the petitioners got the shara as they like form the postman, so as to falsely file a case against him to obtain an order of eviction.
23. The respondent is not aware of the fact that the 1st petitioner is a widow and the other petitioners are her son and daughters.
24. The address referred to in the cause title where the petitioners are allegedly staying is their own premises and it is having sufficient accommodation for their use and occupation and the respondent is not aware that the 2nd petitioner is married and that he has got two issues and that the 4th petitioner is a divorcee and put the petitioners to strict proof of the same.
9
25. The petitioners have no right in respect of schedule B premises and hence, they cannot seek for eviction of the respondent who has been staying in whole of the schedule A property and hence, prayed to reject the petition.
26. Petitioner in order to prove her case, has examined the 5th petitioner as PW 1 and in his evidence, RW 1 got marked as many as 9 documents which are marked as Ex.P.1 to P.9. On the other hand, the respondent is examined as RW1 and he has not got marked any document.
27. After closure of evidence, I have heard the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondent.
28. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments:
1) 1975(1) Kar.L.J. 58
2) AIR 1978 All 173
3) AIR 1965 MP 1
29. I have given my anxious consideration to the principles laid down in the above judgments.
30. After having heard the arguments urged by the petitioner's Counsel and the material available on record, the points that arise for my consideration are as under:-
10
1) Whether the petitioners prove that there exists jural relationship of landlord and tenant between themselves and the respondent with respect to the petition schedule premises?
2) Whether the petitioners prove that the respondent has not paid whole of the arrears of rent, inspite of service of statutory notice?
3) Whether the petitioners prove that they require the petition schedule premises for their bonafide use and occupation?
4) Whether the petitioners prove that petitioner No.1 is a widow and hence, they require the schedule premises for her immediate occupation?
5) What order?
31. My findings on the above said points is as under:-
Point No.1 .. In the affirmative Point No.2 .. In the affirmative Point No.3 .. In the affirmative Point No.4 .. In the affirmative Point No.5 .. As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
32. Point No.1:- It is the case of the petitioners that one Muniyamma and her daughters had filed O.S.No.52/1999 against R.Seenappa, the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of other petitioners, seeking partition of schedule A property, which came to be decreed and preliminary decree came to be drawn and thereafter, as per the final decree passed in FDP No.1/2009, schedule B property fell to 11 the share of R.Seenappa, who died during the pendency of FDP and the petitioners have come on record in FDP as LRs of Seenappa and as per the final decree passed in FDP which was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, the petitioners became the owners of the schedule B premises. The petitioners have been aware of the fact that the respondent has been residing as a tenant in the schedule B premises as a tenant under Smt.Muniyamma on a monthly rent of Rs.2,500/-, but in the legal notice, the petitioners have stated the monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- which is for full extent ie., petition schedule A premises. Subsequent to drawing up of final decree in FDP No.1/2009 and mutating the name of the petitioners as owners of schedule B premises, the petitioners got issued a legal notice on 29.04.2016 narrating the said facts and the said notice was returned unclaimed DL 1st ID on 05.04.2016 and during second time, intimation was delivered, which constitutes deemed service and thus, the petitioner claim that as they became owners of the schedule B premises by virtue of the order passed in partition suit, FDP and the registration of the final decree in the office of the Sub Registrar, which fact was brought to the notice of the respondent, who is the tenant of the schedule B premises, vide notice dated 29.04.2016, the petitioners contend that they being landlords, the respondent is tenant of the schedule premises under them and there exists jural relationship of landlords and tenant between them.
12
33. The respondent in the statement of objections, though admits about the proceedings of partition suit in O.S.No.52/1999 between Muniyamma and R.Seenappa and the decree passed in the said suit and also the FDP proceedings, but contends that as against the order passed in FDP, Muniyamma filed MFA 4178/2016. It is further contended by the respondent that he is tenant in whole of the schedule A premises under Smt.Muniyamma and her daughters and they put him possession of the schedule A premises as tenant under oral agreement. The respondent denies the fact of issuance of legal notice by the petitioners to him and also the existence of jural relationship between the petitioners and himself as landlords and tenant and according to respondent, the petitioners are strangers to the schedule premises and hence, sought to reject the petition.
34. As stated above, on behalf of the petitioner, 5th petitioners has been examined as PW 1, who in his evidence reiterated the averments of the petition, contending that the petitioners are the landlords and that the respondent is tenant of the petition schedule premises. Likewise, the respondent got examined himself as RW 1 and reiterated the averments of the objection statement.
35. In the cross-examination of PW 1, it is elicited from him that Muniyamma has let out the schedule premises to the respondent on 13 monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- and she is collecting the rent and he further volunteers that she is also collecting their rent. It is further elicited from him that his father got the share in FDP proceedings in respect of the petition schedule premises. He says that Muniyamma and Seenappa have purchased the property from Puttanna and they got right in respect of the schedule premises by virtue of an order passed in FDP. It is elicited from him in terms of Ex.P.4, the possession has been delivered to them. It is further elicited from him that the respondent is in occupation of both the portions which has been demarcated in the Commissioner's Report and the petition schedule premises came to the share of his father and hence, the respondent became the tenant of them. He admits that he has no document to show that the respondent is tenant under them except the FDP order.
36. As against the same, the cross-examination of respondent is one of total denial. However, if we go through the statement of objections filed by the respondent, the respondent says that he does not know about the partition affected between the Muniyamma and R.Seenappa in the original suit as well as in the FDP proceedings. RW 1 further categorically admits that in his affidavit, he has stated that there are 2 portions and one belongs to Muniyamma and another portion belongs to the petitioners. In one breath, RW 1 says that he has given instructions to his counsel Lokesh, who prepared the affidavit and in 14 another breath, he says that he does not know where the office of Advocate Lokesh is located. He categorically admits that Smt.Muniyamma took him to prepare the objection statement and further admits that he does not know what information Smt.Muniyamma has given to prepare the objection statement and he does not know what conversation took place between Smt.Muniyamma and the Counsel. He further admits that the address mentioned in the cause title is his present address. He admits that if any notice or letter is sent to the said address, the same will be served on him. He admits that he did not make any efforts to know the contents of the petition and after receipt of the notice and eviction petition, he has given the same to Smt.Muniyamma and Muniyamma got prepared the objections and he has signed the objections.
37. The petitioners have produced Ex.P.1 and 2 which are the copies of the judgment in O.S.No.52/1999 and FDP 1/2009, which discloses that Muniyamma, to whom the respondent sets up title of the schedule A and B premises, is none other than another wife of R.Seenappa apart from 1st petitioner in the present case. The said suit filed by Muniyamma, having decreed and preliminary decree being passed, FDP 1/2009 was filed in which final decree was passed, bifurcating the schedule A property in to two halves and allotting the schedule B property to Seenappa, in respect of which the respondent is 15 tenant. Thereafter, the petitioners sent notice to the respondent intimating the said fact, as per Ex.P.6, which was delivered to the respondent as per Ex.P.7, which fact, the respondent denies.
38. In the background of the above facts, if we peruse the meaning of "landlord" as per Section 3(e) of the Act, the same read thus:-
"(e) "landlord" means a person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive, the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person or as trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive the rent or to be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant".
39. In the case on hand, the respondent specifically admits that he is tenant of schedule A premises under Muniyamma and her daughters, to whom he is paying the rents. Schedule B premises is part of schedule A premises. As per Ex.P.1 and 2, schedule A premises was bifurcated and schedule B premises was allotted to petitioners. Thus, when the respondent specifically admits that he is tenant under Muniyamma and her daughters and when the property was partitioned as per the Final Decree in FDP 1/2009, in which schedule B property was allotted to the petitioners, in respect of which the respondent is tenant and when the definition of clause of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, as extracted above, covers the person who is receiving the rent in the meaning of landlord 16 and therefore, there cannot be any hurdle for this Court to accept the petitioner as the landlords of the schedule B premises and the respondent as tenant under her.
40. It has to be stated here that as per the answers given by the respondent in his cross-examination, the respondent is totally unaware of the facts of the case since he admits that he did not make any efforts to know the contents of the petition. It appears from the conduct of the respondent that he is a puppet at the hands of the said Muniyamma, or else, RW 1 would not have given answer as elicited from his mouth during the course of his cross-examination. Be that as it may. This Court cannot decide upon the title of the parties, at the same time, it cannot ignore the judicial pronouncements in the original proceedings as well as FDP proceedings, discussed above, regarding the title passed to the petitioners.
41. The Advocate for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, relied upon a judgment reported in AIR 1978 All 173 ( Ram Chandra Singh and others Vs Ram Saran and others). In the said case the question that arose for consideration was "Whether the plaintiff- appellant became the landlords of that portion of the house on rent within the defendants which fell in their share in the partition suit and whether the plaintiffs-appellants were on that ground entitled to obtain a decree of ejectment of the defendants from that portion of the house". 17 The said question was answered in the affirmative by the Allahabad High Court. The Counsel for petitioners, placing heavy reliance on the said judgment, contended that the facts and circumstances of the above case being similar to the case on hand, are aptly applicable and hence, contended that there is no ground in the contention of the respondent that there exists no jural relationship of landlords and tenant between the petitioners and the respondent with respect to the petition schedule premises. I have gone through the principles laid down in the above judgment. The principles laid down in the said case and the case on hand being similar, can be made applicable. Thus, for the discussions made above, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioners have successfully proved the existence of jural relationship between them and the respondent as landlords and tenant with respect to the petition schedule premises as they became landlords and the respondent became tenant by implication of law. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
42. Point No.2:- It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner in the schedule premises on monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- and the respondent in spite of having been called upon to pay the rent to the petitioners vide their legal notice dated 29.04.2016, he has not come forward to tender the rent to the petitioners at the rate of Rs.2,500/- from March'2016, for a period of three months and the total rent due by the respondent to the petitioners to the date of filing of the petition is 18 Rs.7,500/- thereby committed default in payment of monthly rent to the petitioners constituting ground for eviction form the petition schedule B premises.
43. The respondent in para No.9 of the statement of objections denied the above averments of the petitioner. It is his contention that he is paying the rent to Muniyamma, the landlady.
44. In order to seek eviction of the tenant under the provisions of Section 27 (2) (a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, issuance of statutory notice to the respondent calling upon him to pay arrears of rents is mandatory. Further, after issuance of notice, the respondent is required to be given 2 months time to pay arrears of rents and if within the said period of 2 months from the receipt of demand notice, the respondent/tenant fails to pay arrears of rents, then the cause of action arises for petitioner/landlord to seek eviction of the respondent /tenant under Section 27(2)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Therefore, it has to be seen whether the mandatory notice has been issued by the petitioner to the respondent and as to whether he has been given 2 months time to pay arrears of rents, then only, it can be said that the respondent has committed default in payment of arrears of rents.
45. In this regard, on perusal of Ex.P.6 which is copy of notice issued to the respondent prior to filing of this petition, the same is issued 19 on 29.04.2016 and the same is served on him on 03.05.2016 as per the Acknowledgement issued by the postal department. In page 3, last para, the petitioners have made averments regarding the quantum of rent and also regarding arrears of rent and also made demand to pay the same. This petition is filed on 28.10.2016 and thus, the petitioners have clearly followed the stipulations provided under Section 27(2)(a) of the Act. The respondent, as stated above, though in the statement of objections, as well as in his evidence, denied the arrears of rent, but when once it is established that there exists jural relationship between the petitioners and the respondent as landlords and tenant and further when the petitioners have established there is arrears of rent and claiming the arrears of rent by issuance of notice, it can be said that the petitioners have established that the respondent is in arrears of rent. The respondent, as stated above, having contended that the petitioners are strangers to the petition schedule premises, stated that he is paying rents to Muniyamma and thereby, it can be said that the petitioners are entitled to claim the arrears of rent. Thus, the petitioners have proved point No.2 and accordingly, I answer the same in the affirmative.
46. Point No.3 and 4 :- Both these points are taken up for discussion together, as the evidence is likely to overlap.
47. The petitioners have invoked section 27(2) (r) and 31(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act on the ground that they are staying together in a 20 rented house at No.2, D-II Street, Sundar Mudaliar Street, Ulsoor, Bangalore 560 008 which is a very small, but in spite of that, the petitioners have been staying there without any option and the 2nd petitioner is married and he has got two issues and 4th petitioner is a divorcee. The 1st petitioner has been finding it difficult to stay with the 2nd petitioner and his family members and further she has got an obligation to look after the 4th petitioner and they have no other alternative accommodation except the petition schedule B premises and hence, they are seeking eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule B premises.
48. Further, in support of their pleadings as to the requirement of the petition schedule premises, the 1st petitioner has also filed an affidavit in compliance of Explanation I (i) to Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
49. As stated above, the 5th petitioner has got himself examined as PW 1, in which he reiterated the averments not only regarding the requirement of the schedule premises by the petitioners, but also stated that the 1st petitioner being a widow, she is in immediate need of the schedule premises for her bona fide use and occupation.
50. The respondent, in para 14 has contended that he is not aware of the fact that 1st petitioner is a widow and the respondent in para 15 of the statement of objections, having contended that the address referred to 21 in the cause title where the petitioners are allegedly staying is their won premises and it is having sufficient accommodation for their use and occupation. Further contended that the respondent is not aware that the 2nd petitioner is married and that he has got two issues and that the 4th petitioner is a divorcee, has failed to substantiate the same by deposing the same in his evidence, since the affidavit filed by the respondent is silent not only regarding the requirement of the schedule premises by the petitioners but also as to the fact that the 1st petitioner being a widow, is in immediate need of the schedule premises.
51. Even though in the cross-examination of PW 1, it is elicited from him that they are staying in the house No.2, D-II Street, Sundar Mudaliar Street, Ulsoor, Benglauru and that the same is their own house in which himself, his sister and mother are residing, but it is further elicited from him that his brother is staying in a rented house and he further says that the petition schedule premise is required to accommodate his brother and his family members. It is further elicited from him that except the house which they are residing, they have no other building, other than the schedule premises. Thus, the case of the petitioners is that the intend to accommodate one of their family members in the schedule premises.
52. It has to be stated here that when once the jural relationship of the petitioners with the respondent is established and when the 22 petitioners contend that the schedule premises is required for their bona fide use and occupation, the need of the petitioners cannot be said to be unreasonable or mala fide. Added to that, though the respondent has contended that the petitioner's family owns another house in Bangalore, where they can reside, but here it has to be stated that the tenant, cannot dictate terms to the landlord to chose a particular property for their purpose and further it has to be noted that as stated above, the petitioners are intending to accommodate one of their family members in the schedule premises. It has to be further stated that it is the choice of the landlord, who can decide which property is more suitable to her purpose. Moreover, the petitioner, as per Notice marked as Ex.P.6, issued to the respondent, specifically conveyed to the respondent that the schedule premises is required by them for their residence. Further more, the present petition being HRC proceeding, where there is no provision to consider the comparative hardship. Added to that, the petitioners have produced Ex.P.9 - Death Certificate of R.Sheenappa, the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of other petitioners, meaning thereby, the petitioner No.1 being a widow, she is entitled to claim immediate possession of the schedule premises from the respondent. Hence, the petitioners have established their case that the petitioner No.1 being a widow, they require the schedule premises for their bona fide use and occupation. The respondent has failed to convince the Court with cogent 23 reasons that the requirement of the petitioner is not bonafide. Hence, I answer point No.3 and 4 in the affirmative.
53. Point No.5:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners under Section 27(2) (a), (r) and 31(1) (a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is hereby allowed.
The respondent is directed to vacate and handover vacant possession of the schedule premises to the petitioners immediately, as envisaged under Section 31(1)(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and also the pay the arrears of rent of Rs.7,500/- for the period from March'2016 till May'2016, as claimed in the petition, and also pay the rent at the said rate from June'2016 till he vacates the premises.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 30th day of November'2016) (H.P.SANDESH) CHIEF JUDGE SCHEDULE A Premises bearing No.11 measuring East to West 22 feet and North to South 32 feet, situated at 2nd Cross, 4th Main, Shamanna Gowda Layout, Ulsoor, Bangalore 560 008, bounded as follows:-
East by : ACC Sheet house of Shankar West by : Road North by : Road South by : Property of Somappa 24 SCHEDULE B (Marked in Commissioner's sketch as 'Y' portion) A portion of schedule-A measuring East to West 22 feet and north to South 16 feet situated at 2nd Cross, 4th Main, Shamanna Gowda Layout, Ulsoor, Bangalore 560008, bounded as follows:-
East by : ACC sheet house of Shankar West by: Road North by : Road South by: Remaining portion of property No.11 marked in Commissioner's sketch as 'X' portion fallen to the Share of Smt.Muniyamma and her three daughters.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PETITIONERS : PW-1 : S.Mani LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENT : R.W.1 - Nazar Khan LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PETITIONERS:
Ex.P-1 : Judgment and Decree in OS 52/1999 Ex.P-2 : Order in FDP Ex.P-3 : Registered copy of Decree Ex.P-4 : Commissioner's Report Ex.P.5 Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.6 Legal Notice Ex.P.7 Postal Receipt Ex.P.8 Endorsement Ex.P.9 Death Certificate
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
-Nil-25
(H.P.SANDESH) Chief Judge, 29.11.2016 Petitioner by TKR